Re: Sublime Text Syntax Definition Rewrite
On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 05:37:42 UTC, Dmitry wrote: On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 00:30:24 UTC, Benjamin Schaaf wrote: I've recently gotten a massive rewrite of the D syntax ... Hope you enjoy! --- Thank you! Looking forward to try it (right now it shows 'no update available', build 3176) 3176 was the latest stable build, you'd need to change to the development versions (requires a license) to get more recent updates or you can install the Packages manually. Is this the reason why it works extremely slow with big files? :D I know you're just taking a fun jab but from personal experience its behaved pretty well with multi-GB files. All the corner cases we're aware of where it does become slow are algorithmic problems where a change in language really wouldn't help :)
Re: Sublime Text Syntax Definition Rewrite
On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 00:30:24 UTC, Benjamin Schaaf wrote: I've recently gotten a massive rewrite of the D syntax ... Hope you enjoy! --- Thank you! Looking forward to try it (right now it shows 'no update available', build 3176) Though I'd love to, we don't use D internally for anything. Is this the reason why it works extremely slow with big files? :D
Re: DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review
On 02/25/2019 03:41 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
On Monday, 25 February 2019 at 20:23:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/25/19 3:23 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2019-02-25 20:24, Mike Parker wrote:
From the process document:
“the DIP Manager or the Language Maintainers may allow for
exceptions which waive requirements or responsibilities at their
discretion.”
Having it documented doesn't make it less flawed.
Jacob, are there amends you need to make to the DIP?
Honestly, I've not understood the rationale or the covered use case in
letting the copy ctor mutate the ref source parameters...
Sincerely, without polemical intent.
I made an editorial pass:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/145
The most material change was additional explanation of using mutable ref
instead of e.g. const. Here's the relevant excerpt, please let me know
if it clarifies the motivation.
=
1. The parameter of the copy constructor is passed by a mutable
reference to the
source object. This means that a call to the copy constructor may
legally modify
the source object:
```d
struct A
{
int[] a;
this(ref A another)
{
another.a[2] = 3;
}
}
void main()
{
A a, b;
a = b;// b.a[2] is modified
}
```
This is surprising and potentially error-prone behavior because changing
the source of a copy is not customary and may surprise the user of a
type. (For that reason, C++ coding standards adopt the convention of
taking the source by means of reference to `const`; copy constructors
that use non-`const` right-hand side are allowed but discouraged.) In D,
`const` and `immutable` are more restrictive than in C++, so forcing
`const` on the copy constructor's right-hand side would make simple
copying task unduly difficult. Consider:
```d
class Window
{
...
}
struct Widget
{
private Window display;
...
this(ref const Widget rhs)
{
display = rhs.display; // Error! Cannot initialize a Window
from a const(Window)
}
}
```
Such sharing of resources across objects is a common occurrence, which
would be impeded by forcing `const` on the right-hand side of a copy.
(An inferior workaround would be to selectively cast `const` away inside
the copy constructor, which is obviously undesirable.) For that reason
this DIP proposes allowing mutable copy sources.
=
Sublime Text Syntax Definition Rewrite
Hello all, I've recently gotten a massive rewrite of the D syntax highlighting merged into the Sublime Text default packages. This has since been deployed in the most recent development version 3192 (license required) and will be shipping with the next stable. Anyone trying Sublime Text has probably noticed the poor D support. Here's a very incomplete list of everything that's been fixed/improved: * Functions, classes, interfaces, enums, structs, unions, templates and aliases are now properly indexed, making GoTo Definition work properly * Function/Template calls are properly marked, making GoTo Reference work properly * Nested comments now work as expected * Shebangs are properly highlighted * Ligatures are now properly supported * `..` no longer highlights as a floating point * Strings are now properly highlighted, including postfixes and delimited strings * Token strings actually highlight tokens now * Attributes, including UDAs, are highlighted properly * Automatic indentation is no longer broken (Typing `} catch...` would re-indent the line) * Arguments are highlighted as actual arguments * Contracts are properly highlighted now You can find the pr here: https://github.com/sublimehq/Packages/pull/1850 If you do find a bug with the syntax highlighting or just something that could be done better please leave a bug report on the repository, I'll be maintaining it for the foreseeable future: https://github.com/sublimehq/Packages/issues If you don't have a license you can still use the new syntax highlighting before the next stable build by cloning the repository and symlinking the `D` folder into your Sublime Text "Packages" directory (Details in the README). You can download Sublime Text here: https://www.sublimetext.com/3 Hope you enjoy! --- Full disclosure: I work for Sublime HQ. Though I'd love to, we don't use D internally for anything.
Re: The D Programming Language has been accepted as a GSoC 2019 organization
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 01:04:42PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] > Although frankly, I have to admit, this whole "Fast code, fast" thing > is complete and utter rubbish compared to the "Better C++" that we've > now decided to be politically incorrect (very ironically, despite > active promotion of "betterC"). That fast-fast-fast slogan makes me cringe every time I see it. I try not to look at it every time I go to dlang.org, lest I throw up. If it weren't for the fact that D is actually technically superior to many other alternatives, I might have left D on that account alone; it's *that* bad. It surely can't have escaped the more observant among us the irony that the flagship D compiler, dmd, is the antithesis of that slogan as far as codegen quality is concerned. Thankfully, ldc/gdc comes to the rescue on the codegen front, otherwise this slogan would bear far more resemblance to fast food than I find palatable -- fast food fast, who cares if it's unhealthy and fattening AKA compile code fast, who cares if it produces slow executables. But since the PTBs have decreed it, and I really don't care enough about marketing to want to push for a change, I just shut one eye and carry on with the more important things in life. *shrug* T -- Without outlines, life would be pointless.
Re: gtkDcoding Blog: Post #0009 - Boxes
On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 at 02:42:07 UTC, DanielG wrote: Why not just make a single thread, "gtkDecoding Blog updates", and always append to it? It will bump the topic back up to the top whenever you add something. Sounds sane enough. :)
Re: The D Programming Language has been accepted as a GSoC 2019 organization
On 2/27/19 11:05 AM, JN wrote: On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 16:01:15 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote: On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:34:45 UTC, Seb wrote: The D Language Language got accepted as a Google Summer of Code organization! Awesome! Or be turned off. If I didn't know about D, from that description I'd think it's some experimental language for whom Boost wasn't crazy enough with templates. "The best, most innovative ways to use the D language are yet to be discovered." That's great. But it doesn't answer the most important questions - what can it be used for, what makes it different than say C++ or Java. In my experience, when non-D-users are asking that question, what they're REALLY looking for is one (and only one) gimmick that the entire D language (and ONLY D) takes religiously at the negligence of all else. And since "pragmatism" isn't a trendy silver-bullet ideology like Java's "Everything is an object", or JS's "Everything is a variant", Python's "Everything is a variant AND we have 'Zen'", Haskell's "Though shalt not do imperative", or Go's "ZOMG, It's from teh Google Gods!!!", so they gripe about not being spoon-fed marketing BS and walk away. Habitual consumerists. They're lost souls, slaves to pack mentality, so forget about them. Target leaders and thinkers instead. Although frankly, I have to admit, this whole "Fast code, fast" thing is complete and utter rubbish compared to the "Better C++" that we've now decided to be politically incorrect (very ironically, despite active promotion of "betterC").
Re: The D Programming Language has been accepted as a GSoC 2019 organization
On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 at 16:01:15 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote: On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:34:45 UTC, Seb wrote: Hi all, I have some very exciting news to share. The D Language Language got accepted as a Google Summer of Code organization! The official GSoC page provides a few initial pointers and details: https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/6103365956665344 You guys give a very nice description of the language on that page. If I didn’t already use D, I would want to now! Bastiaan. Or be turned off. If I didn't know about D, from that description I'd think it's some experimental language for whom Boost wasn't crazy enough with templates. "The best, most innovative ways to use the D language are yet to be discovered." That's great. But it doesn't answer the most important questions - what can it be used for, what makes it different than say C++ or Java. Although I doubt it matters in a description on a page like that. As for GSoC, good luck to all participants. I think just as important are the ideas, it's important to deliver on them, so we don't end up with lost effort such as with std.experimental.xml, which is kind of in a limbo right now.
Re: The D Programming Language has been accepted as a GSoC 2019 organization
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:34:45 UTC, Seb wrote: Hi all, I have some very exciting news to share. The D Language Language got accepted as a Google Summer of Code organization! The official GSoC page provides a few initial pointers and details: https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/6103365956665344 You guys give a very nice description of the language on that page. If I didn’t already use D, I would want to now! Bastiaan.
Re: The D Programming Language has been accepted as a GSoC 2019 organization
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:34:45 UTC, Seb wrote: Hi all, I have some very exciting news to share. [...] Congratulations on being excepted this year. In addition to the 'free' work for the community this is also a great way to draw in new talent.
Re: DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 05:38:01 UTC, Manu wrote: I'm talking about this DIP. Allowing a mutable copy argument feels super weird. The problem was out of place mutation, which can't happen with copy constructor, because initialization from rvalue is a move, so the copy constructor won't be called.
Re: The D Programming Language has been accepted as a GSoC 2019 organization
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:34:45 UTC, Seb wrote: Hi all, I have some very exciting news to share. [snip] Great news.
DConf 2019 Guided Tour
From now, all DConf 2019 registrants are eligible to participate for free in a walking tour guided by Julian McDonnell of Joolz Guides: https://joolzguides.com/ You can see some of Julian's video guides on his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFWqceEDVxifaU3ljzMH5tg Tours will be offered on May 6th and May 7th. Details will be forthcoming. Availability is limited, so this is a first-come-first-serve sort of thing. When you register, I'll provide you with the information you need to reserve a spot.
Re: DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review
On 2/27/2019 3:27 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: [...] Please start another thread.
Re: DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review
On 2019-02-26 12:07, Walter Bright wrote: It hasn't been approved yet, and please start another thread if you want to discuss it. You have approved the pull request. -- /Jacob Carlborg
